About that shadow object

Flat earthers claim the existence of a "Shadow Object" to explain eclipses.  I would like to understand some details of this part of flat earth theory.  Please answer any or all of the following:

1.  Is the Shadow Object (SO) disk-shaped, nominally spherical, or some other shape?
2.  What are the SO's approximate dimensions?
3.  What is the SO made of?
4.  Why can't we see the SO directly, rather than inferring its existence when we see an eclipse?
5.  What natural force is responsible for the SO's movement in the sky?
6.  Where is the SO when it is not causing eclipses?  For example, where is it today, Dec. 10, 2014?
7.  When it is not eclipsing the Sun or Moon, shouldn't it be blocking some other part of the sky which we could verify?
8.  How far from Earth is the SO?
9.  Keeping in mind that the existence of eclipses does not prove the SO exists (since round earth theory can also explain eclipses without conjuring a shadow object), what evidence do you have that the SO exists?

Flat earthers claim the existence of a "Shadow Object" to explain eclipses.  I would like to understand some details of this part of flat earth theory.  Please answer any or all of the following:

1.  Is the Shadow Object (SO) disk-shaped, nominally spherical, or some other shape?
2.  What are the SO's approximate dimensions?
3.  What is the SO made of?
4.  Why can't we see the SO directly, rather than inferring its existence when we see an eclipse?
5.  What natural force is responsible for the SO's movement in the sky?
6.  Where is the SO when it is not causing eclipses?  For example, where is it today, Dec. 10, 2014?
7.  When it is not eclipsing the Sun or Moon, shouldn't it be blocking some other part of the sky which we could verify?
8.  How far from Earth is the SO?
9.  Keeping in mind that the existence of eclipses does not prove the SO exists (since round earth theory can also explain eclipses without conjuring a shadow object), what evidence do you have that the SO exists?

I have already tried in vain to get details about this magical thing that is the shadow object. I hope you get more luck than me.

My biggest issue with the SO is that it never obstructs any starts.  It only applies to the moon.

Moreover, when the SO blocks the moon, the portions of the moon behind the SO can still be seen with sensitive enough equipment.

Zetetic observation leads me to believe that one of the following must be true:
1) The SO is a thin, polarized screen that transmits starlight (earthly reflections?) while at the same time blocking 99.9% of light from the moon.
2) The SO doesn't exist.

Two days and counting, and no response whatsoever from flat earthers.  Do you guys really think you can get away with proposing a bizarre theory -- in this case, a "shadow object" -- and not be expected to back it up with details and evidence?

Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum? 

Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum?

So you are disavowing the Shadow Object theory?  How, then, do you explain eclipses?

Let me guess. Jroa will give a terrible explanation involving the lunar winds blowing the self illuminating dust with no chemical signature that conveniently is untouchable by humans risking death across the flat lunar disk close with magical suction keeping said dust on, and later deny this, further proving that jroa is not to be taken seriously.
Honestly, you'll run out of lame excuses one day. Just say "I don't know" for once. We can't possibly think less of you. In fact, we'll think more of you. I'm not being hostile here. Just say that you don't know. Rather than saying "It wouldn't be a good conspiracy if there was evidence everywhere.", say "I don't know what there is to gain from this.". Please jroa. You one day will cave and say that you don't know. Or not. It wouldn't be flat earth wild guess if there was logic laying around everywhere.

Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum?

If it isn't "The Shadow Object Theory", then what is the Flat Earth Theory for the eclipse ?

Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum?

Do you not accept the "shadow object" theory as clearly explained in your own Flat earth Wiki jroa?

As per:

•   A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon. This satellite is called the Shadow Object.
•   The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
•   It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter.

Assuming you don't agree with the above, what then is your personal theory about eclipses?  And which other facts from your FEW do you disagree with?  Only a couple (such as this) or many?  Or even all of them?

I attribute it to lunar life forms.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42779.0#.VI5fOZY8Lv4

I attribute it to lunar life forms.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42779.0#.VI5fOZY8Lv4

In that thread, you start by saying "It is well accepted that light from the moon is a result of biolumonence; probably fungus or bacteria."  Please show one link to a single person anywhere in the world that believes this.  Given that this theory is "well accepted", you should be able to find a lot of scientists who agree with you, but for starters, just name one.

When I was a little kid the old man showed me the man on the moon chopping firewood. I used to wonder what would happen if his fire went out.

Quote from: jroa on December 12, 2014, 07:42:53 AM

Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum?

Do you not accept the "shadow object" theory as clearly explained in your own Flat earth Wiki jroa?

As per:

•   A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon. This satellite is called the Shadow Object.
•   The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
•   It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter.

Assuming you don't agree with the above, what then is your personal theory about eclipses?  And which other facts from your FEW do you disagree with?  Only a couple (such as this) or many?  Or even all of them?

When have I stated that I believe in everything the wiki says?  Aren't I the one who encourages people to think for themselves?  Why would I then just believe what the wiki says without thinking for myself?  The wiki is a good starting point, but it is not the end-all source of information. 

When have I stated that I believe in everything the wiki says?  Aren't I the one who encourages people to think for themselves?  Why would I then just believe what the wiki says without thinking for myself?  The wiki is a good starting point, but it is not the end-all source of information.

Ok, then once again: how do you explain eclipses if you don't believe in the shadow object?

The sun and moon get lost in space,how easy.

Quote from: jroa on December 15, 2014, 06:15:26 AM

When have I stated that I believe in everything the wiki says?  Aren't I the one who encourages people to think for themselves?  Why would I then just believe what the wiki says without thinking for myself?  The wiki is a good starting point, but it is not the end-all source of information.

Ok, then once again: how do you explain eclipses if you don't believe in the shadow object?

Eclipses occur when the moon gets in between the sun and your point of view.  No shadow object needed. 

Ok now try a solar eclipse.

Ok now try a solar eclipse.

What do you mean?  I thought I did. 

When I first came to this site you were babbling about how eclipse's did not happen. Different bottle of rum tonight?.

I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say? 

I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say?

Yes, you just described a solar eclipse, and RE theory and FE theory agree on this explanation.  Now please explain the lunar eclipse.  Round earth theory says that's when the earth passes between the Sun and the Moon.  This doesn't seem possible if the earth is flat and the Sun and Moon are always on the same side of the earth.

Tell us all about a lunar eclipse. 

Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well? 

Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

Googlewhack!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22

Edit: Posted to soon. please define the above as nobody seems to every have heard of / detailed this before...

Thanks

Quote from: jroa on December 15, 2014, 07:13:29 AM

Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

Googlewhack!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22

Edit: Posted to soon. please define the above as nobody seems to every have heard of / detailed this before...

Thanks

You have never heard of the atmoplane?  How long have you been here? 

When have I stated that I believe in everything the wiki says?  Aren't I the one who encourages people to think for themselves?  Why would I then just believe what the wiki says without thinking for myself?  The wiki is a good starting point, but it is not the end-all source of information.

You've now said on several occasions that you don't accept some specific point or other in the Flat Earth Wiki jroa.

Considering that the FEW is often cited as the flat earthers' "bible", are you now claiming that much of its content is erroneous?  Or, how much, in percentage terms, would you say is wrong?

Also, how do you explain that newbie round earthers to the forum are usually and firstly referred to the FEW—if many parts of it don't represent the overall opinions of the flat earth community?  How then does that newbie differentiate fact from outdated data?  Shouldn't the FEW be periodically updated and/or amended to reflect the current flat earth hypotheses?

It seems to me that you—and several other flat earthers—pick and choose when to cite the FEW and when not to, in order to suit your argument at the time.  Is my view on this wrong?

I said I do not agree with everything in the wiki.  In several articles, two or three different explanations are given.  I could not possibly think that all of the explanations could all possibly be true.  However, the wiki does do, for the most part, a good job of admitting that there are several different beliefs, and that is why it offers more than one explanation.  What exactly is your problem with this?  I can tell you are trying to bait me into something. 

Quote from: ItMustBeRound on December 15, 2014, 07:18:27 AM

Quote from: jroa on December 15, 2014, 07:13:29 AM

Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

Googlewhack!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22

Edit: Posted to soon. please define the above as nobody seems to every have heard of / detailed this before...

Thanks

You have never heard of the atmoplane?  How long have you been here?

You're missing the point, that point being, of the billions of people who use the internet on a daily basis, nobody, and I mean literally nobody outside of one search result has ever written anything about "Atmoplanic Conditions". On the other hand, a quick search for the  exact term "mechanics of a lunar eclipses" reveals over 19 thousand sources to read up from.

I'm quite happy actually, this is the first Googlewhack I've ever found.

Argumentum ad numerum is not a valid form of debating.  If the best you can do is throw around some numbers, then you will probably not make it very far here. 

Argumentum ad numerum is not a valid form of debating.  If the best you can do is throw around some numbers, then you will probably not make it very far here.

I'm sorry, but when I'm thrown terms or concepts that I've got little to no insight in I tend to look for sources where I can read up on those things. Atmoplanic Conditions is one of those things and as such, I thought I'd do a little of my own research. Turns out there's so little written about Atmoplanic Conditions that I'm just expected to take your word for it. No citations, no reference materials, not an image or diagram in sight that would support or detract from Atmoplanic Conditions.

This to me has the same value as someone saying "because I said so". It never worked for my parents and it certainly won't work for you. If, on the other hand, you can point to other sources then please, enlighten me, otherwise, I shall withdraw for now and leave you to explain your version of a Lunar Eclipse through fantasy while I continue to be satisfied with the answers provided by the masses.

In some cases, the numbers really do matter when debating.
Thanks